Request for Public Comments and Dialogue on ICANN's Performance
Request for Public Comments and Dialogue on ICANN's Performance http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-08may07.htm 8 May 2007 As part of an ongoing interest in continuous improvement, ICANN is seeking community feedback about its performance. All responses are welcome. Targeted comments regarding several areas of performance, which have been drawn from the ICANN Strategic Plan, are of particular interest: * Is ICANN becoming more transparent, accessible and accountable? What improvements have been observed and what still needs to be done? * Has ICANN improved its operational performance? What improvements have been observed and what still needs to be done? * Has ICANN improved its performance in the development of Policy? What improvements have been observed and what still needs to be done? * Has ICANN increased international participation? What improvements have been observed and what still needs to be done? * Have there been improvements in participation and in efficiency of the ICANN multi-stakeholder model? What more needs to be done? * What plans and actions have been observed that position ICANN for more comprehensive transition of the technical coordination of the Internet's system of unique identifiers. What more needs to be done? * What improvements have been made in dispute resolution and the application of fairness and equity in the management of complaints and other mechanisms of review that are available? These include the work of the reconsideration committee, the Ombudsman and independent review. Comments will be received at http://forum.icann.org/lists/performance-2007/ until June 5, 2007 and should be sent to: performance-2007@icann.org. A discussion will also take place on ICANN's Blog <http://blog.icann.org> commencing today. ICANN's public participation site <http://public.icann.org> will also serve as a tool for participation in this dialogue.
Hi Alan, May I ask why you voted NO for Telecommunities Canada's ALS application? Telecommunities Canada is one of the (if not the) foremost organizations doing work related to the Internet in Canada. TC has been working tirelessly for almost 15 years, advancing the cause of Internet use and penetration in Canada. Regards, _________________________________________ Luc Faubert Conseiller en gouvernance TI et en gestion du changement / IT governance and change management consulting +1 514 236 5129 www.LucFaubert.com www.LucFaubert.com/blog www.isoc.qc.ca www.ccig.ca www.uqbm.qc.ca www.maillons.qc.ca
Luc, The ICANN bylaws stipulate: The criteria and standards for the certification of At-Large Structures shall be established in such a way that participation by individual Internet users who are citizens or residents of countries within the Geographic Region of the RALO will predominate in the operation of each At-Large Structure within the RALO Telecommunities Canada describes itself as a sort of "holding company" comprised of multiple organizational members whose activities predominate in the operation of TC; individual Internet users (remember them?) are not the predominant factors in TC's operation (per their own admission). Alan was correct in rejecting their application. The better question is why did others approve the application that was deficient on its face? --- Luc Faubert <LFaubert@conceptum.ca> wrote:
Hi Alan,
May I ask why you voted NO for Telecommunities Canada's ALS application?
Telecommunities Canada is one of the (if not the) foremost organizations doing work related to the Internet in Canada. TC has been working tirelessly for almost 15 years, advancing the cause of Internet use and penetration in Canada.
Regards,
_________________________________________ Luc Faubert Conseiller en gouvernance TI et en gestion du changement / IT governance and change management consulting +1 514 236 5129 www.LucFaubert.com www.LucFaubert.com/blog www.isoc.qc.ca www.ccig.ca www.uqbm.qc.ca www.maillons.qc.ca
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...
--- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
Draft Code of Conduct: http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct
____________________________________________________________________________________Building a website is a piece of cake. Yahoo! Small Business gives you all the tools to get online. http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/webhosting
Point of order: This is the second time I've seen someone asked to justify their vote. I dont think votes need to be justified. Randy Glass A@L On 5/21/07, Luc Faubert <LFaubert@conceptum.ca> wrote:
Hi Alan,
May I ask why you voted NO for Telecommunities Canada's ALS application?
Telecommunities Canada is one of the (if not the) foremost organizations doing work related to the Internet in Canada. TC has been working tirelessly for almost 15 years, advancing the cause of Internet use and penetration in Canada.
Regards,
_________________________________________ Luc Faubert Conseiller en gouvernance TI et en gestion du changement / IT governance and change management consulting +1 514 236 5129 www.LucFaubert.com www.LucFaubert.com/blog www.isoc.qc.ca www.ccig.ca www.uqbm.qc.ca www.maillons.qc.ca
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica... --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
Draft Code of Conduct: http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct
-- ------------------------- AmericaAtLarge.org RJPacific.com DDMF.org
Luc, thanks for asking the question. I have been expecting such a question, and although as Randy said, I may not be under any obligation to "justify" my vote, I welcome the opportunity to discuss this. And thanks to those who answered on my behalf (I am in Europe and just got back from a long day's work). The Telecommunities Canada (TC) application was made some months ago, and has been the subject of significant discussion among at least some ALAC members. The major issue has not been whether they are doing good things for the Internet in Canada, but rather do they meet the criteria set forth in the Bylaws. The wording in question is that "individuals will predominate in operation of the ALS". Although I am relatively new to the ALAC, I understand that for all ALS applications to date, this has meant that individual members either directly participate in the organization management or that they select the management group. TC is an organization of organizations. Although they do allow individual honorary members under some conditions, they explicitly exclude them from voting. As Nick has pointed out, this is not the only way to interpret the phrase in the Bylaws. However, based on my experience as a member of various Boards, and on personal inclination, I do not believe that it is appropriate or even legally defensible to change the long-standing interpretation in an ad hoc, undocumented and uncoordinated fashion. To date the ALAC (and its members) has been using one interpretation. It is quite fair game to change that interpretation, but it should be done consciously and based on a formal decision of the committee as a whole. I do not think that it is right for some or even all ALAC members to privately decide to use a different interpretation. Aside from other problems with this, it opens the possibility of using different criteria for different applications - a cardinal sin in my opinion. I have been advocating a formal discussion and vote on whether to change the interpretation and if so how. Several moths later, this has not yet happened. As Nick points out, it is scheduled to be discussed in San Juan, but it was also scheduled to be discussed in Lisbon. If you detect a bit of frustration in my tone, you are right. I voted "no" and with it made a statement to the committee expressing my frustration "that given the time that we have been talking about this one, we could not have found the time for a substantive discussion and decision on ALS criteria." This vote was in line with the long-standing and in my mind still-current interpretation consistently used by the ALAC. This vote was admittedly made easier because I happened to vote very late and I knew that there were already sufficient "yes" votes to accredit TC. If my vote had been a deciding one, I am honestly not sure how I would have handled the situation. I would not presume to speculate why some other ALAC members voted as they did. I can only assume that they voted based on their understanding of the rules and reading of the documents and that is fine with me. The vote of the committee now stands, regardless of the logic used by the individual members in determining their votes, and I am not at all unhappy to welcome Telecommunities Canada as an ALS, and as one that will serve its constituency and ICANN well. I still feel that if we are to alter the Bylaw criteria interpretation it needs to be done in a conscious way, and then used consistently. Hopefully that will happen before we get yet another such application. Regards, Alan At 5/21/2007 09:33 AM, Luc Faubert wrote:
Hi Alan,
May I ask why you voted NO for Telecommunities Canada's ALS application?
Telecommunities Canada is one of the (if not the) foremost organizations doing work related to the Internet in Canada. TC has been working tirelessly for almost 15 years, advancing the cause of Internet use and penetration in Canada.
Regards,
_________________________________________ Luc Faubert Conseiller en gouvernance TI et en gestion du changement / IT governance and change management consulting +1 514 236 5129 www.LucFaubert.com www.LucFaubert.com/blog www.isoc.qc.ca www.ccig.ca www.uqbm.qc.ca www.maillons.qc.ca
Alan, Thanks for you thorough reply. I appreciate.
From what I understand of the history behind the wording to the effect that orgs certified as ALSes should be user-driven, it was meant as a protection against lobbying groups. It would be a shame if this kept legitimate orgs of orgs out of the process, as these are sometimes the only orgs with the human resources to invest in the demanding task of following ICANN-related activites.
Let's hope ALAC can clear things up before long, as another org of orgs from Canada has applied for certification (Communautique, an org a bit like TC in French-speaking Québec). Regards, _________________________________________ Luc Faubert Conseiller en gouvernance TI et en gestion du changement / IT governance and change management consulting +1 514 236 5129 www.LucFaubert.com www.LucFaubert.com/blog www.isoc.qc.ca www.ccig.ca www.uqbm.qc.ca www.maillons.qc.ca
-----Original Message----- From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] Sent: 21 mai 2007 18:25 To: Luc Faubert Cc: At-Large Worldwide; NA Discuss Subject: Re: Reason for NO vote for Telecommunities Canada's ALS application
Luc, thanks for asking the question. I have been expecting such a question, and although as Randy said, I may not be under any obligation to "justify" my vote, I welcome the opportunity to discuss this. And thanks to those who answered on my behalf (I am in Europe and just got back from a long day's work).
The Telecommunities Canada (TC) application was made some months ago, and has been the subject of significant discussion among at least some ALAC members. The major issue has not been whether they are doing good things for the Internet in Canada, but rather do they meet the criteria set forth in the Bylaws. The wording in question is that "individuals will predominate in operation of the ALS". Although I am relatively new to the ALAC, I understand that for all ALS applications to date, this has meant that individual members either directly participate in the organization management or that they select the management group. TC is an organization of organizations. Although they do allow individual honorary members under some conditions, they explicitly exclude them from voting.
As Nick has pointed out, this is not the only way to interpret the phrase in the Bylaws. However, based on my experience as a member of various Boards, and on personal inclination, I do not believe that it is appropriate or even legally defensible to change the long-standing interpretation in an ad hoc, undocumented and uncoordinated fashion. To date the ALAC (and its members) has been using one interpretation. It is quite fair game to change that interpretation, but it should be done consciously and based on a formal decision of the committee as a whole. I do not think that it is right for some or even all ALAC members to privately decide to use a different interpretation. Aside from other problems with this, it opens the possibility of using different criteria for different applications - a cardinal sin in my opinion.
I have been advocating a formal discussion and vote on whether to change the interpretation and if so how. Several moths later, this has not yet happened. As Nick points out, it is scheduled to be discussed in San Juan, but it was also scheduled to be discussed in Lisbon.
If you detect a bit of frustration in my tone, you are right.
I voted "no" and with it made a statement to the committee expressing my frustration "that given the time that we have been talking about this one, we could not have found the time for a substantive discussion and decision on ALS criteria." This vote was in line with the long-standing and in my mind still-current interpretation consistently used by the ALAC.
This vote was admittedly made easier because I happened to vote very late and I knew that there were already sufficient "yes" votes to accredit TC. If my vote had been a deciding one, I am honestly not sure how I would have handled the situation.
I would not presume to speculate why some other ALAC members voted as they did. I can only assume that they voted based on their understanding of the rules and reading of the documents and that is fine with me.
The vote of the committee now stands, regardless of the logic used by the individual members in determining their votes, and I am not at all unhappy to welcome Telecommunities Canada as an ALS, and as one that will serve its constituency and ICANN well.
I still feel that if we are to alter the Bylaw criteria interpretation it needs to be done in a conscious way, and then used consistently. Hopefully that will happen before we get yet another such application.
Regards, Alan
At 5/21/2007 09:33 AM, Luc Faubert wrote:
Hi Alan,
May I ask why you voted NO for Telecommunities Canada's ALS application?
Telecommunities Canada is one of the (if not the) foremost organizations doing work related to the Internet in Canada. TC has been working tirelessly for almost 15 years, advancing the cause of Internet use and penetration in Canada.
Regards,
_________________________________________ Luc Faubert Conseiller en gouvernance TI et en gestion du changement / IT governance and change management consulting +1 514 236 5129 www.LucFaubert.com www.LucFaubert.com/blog www.isoc.qc.ca www.ccig.ca www.uqbm.qc.ca www.maillons.qc.ca
So why not do the right thing and refer them instead to the Non-Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC)? --- Luc Faubert <LFaubert@conceptum.ca> wrote:
Alan,
Thanks for you thorough reply. I appreciate.
From what I understand of the history behind the wording to the effect that orgs certified as ALSes should be user-driven, it was meant as a protection against lobbying groups. It would be a shame if this kept legitimate orgs of orgs out of the process, as these are sometimes the only orgs with the human resources to invest in the demanding task of following ICANN-related activites.
Let's hope ALAC can clear things up before long, as another org of orgs from Canada has applied for certification (Communautique, an org a bit like TC in French-speaking Québec).
Regards,
_________________________________________ Luc Faubert Conseiller en gouvernance TI et en gestion du changement / IT governance and change management consulting +1 514 236 5129 www.LucFaubert.com www.LucFaubert.com/blog www.isoc.qc.ca www.ccig.ca www.uqbm.qc.ca www.maillons.qc.ca
____________________________________________________________________________________ Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545367
Because, as noted half a million times already, the NCUC is a constituency of the GNSO, while the ALAC is an Advisory Committee of the Board, and they have two distinct roles. Therefore, it would be up to the organization itself to decide whether they want to have a (voting) position, limited to GNSO matters, or a (advisory, non voting) position, related to the whole spectrum of ICANN activities. Of course, nothing prevents both things to happen at the same time. Incidentally, may I note that, to the best of my knowledge, nobody ever went to the NCUC list to suggest that current members of that constituency move *instead* to ALAC, even if most of them would indeed qualify. Feel free to forward to NA discuss. Cheers, Roberto
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Danny Younger Sent: 22 May 2007 15:21 To: Luc Faubert; Alan Greenberg Cc: At-Large Worldwide; NA Discuss Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Reason for NO vote for TelecommunitiesCanada's ALS application
So why not do the right thing and refer them instead to the Non-Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC)?
--- Luc Faubert <LFaubert@conceptum.ca> wrote:
Alan,
Thanks for you thorough reply. I appreciate.
From what I understand of the history behind the wording to the effect that orgs certified as ALSes should be user-driven, it was meant as a protection against lobbying groups. It would be a shame if this kept legitimate orgs of orgs out of the process, as these are sometimes the only orgs with the human resources to invest in the demanding task of following ICANN-related activites.
Let's hope ALAC can clear things up before long, as another org of orgs from Canada has applied for certification (Communautique, an org a bit like TC in French-speaking Québec).
Regards,
_________________________________________ Luc Faubert Conseiller en gouvernance TI et en gestion du changement / IT governance and change management consulting +1 514 236 5129 www.LucFaubert.com www.LucFaubert.com/blog www.isoc.qc.ca www.ccig.ca www.uqbm.qc.ca www.maillons.qc.ca
______________________________________________________________ ______________________ Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545367
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-l ists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
Hi Roberto, If Communautique (as an org of orgs) will not meet the ALS criteria per the ICANN bylaws, then why leave them out in the cold? It would certainly be better to suggest to them that they can possibly find a home in the NCUC. With regard to "nothing prevents both things to happen at the same time", that may not be true. In fact, I am currently in discussions with Milton Mueller over this issue as the NCUC Charter deems ineligible those organizations that provide services under MoU with ICANN. --- Roberto Gaetano <roberto@icann.org> wrote:
Because, as noted half a million times already, the NCUC is a constituency of the GNSO, while the ALAC is an Advisory Committee of the Board, and they have two distinct roles. Therefore, it would be up to the organization itself to decide whether they want to have a (voting) position, limited to GNSO matters, or a (advisory, non voting) position, related to the whole spectrum of ICANN activities. Of course, nothing prevents both things to happen at the same time.
Incidentally, may I note that, to the best of my knowledge, nobody ever went to the NCUC list to suggest that current members of that constituency move *instead* to ALAC, even if most of them would indeed qualify.
Feel free to forward to NA discuss.
Cheers, Roberto
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Danny Younger Sent: 22 May 2007 15:21 To: Luc Faubert; Alan Greenberg Cc: At-Large Worldwide; NA Discuss Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Reason for NO vote for TelecommunitiesCanada's ALS application
So why not do the right thing and refer them instead to the Non-Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC)?
--- Luc Faubert <LFaubert@conceptum.ca> wrote:
Alan,
Thanks for you thorough reply. I appreciate.
From what I understand of the history behind the wording to the effect that orgs certified as ALSes should be user-driven, it was meant as a protection against lobbying groups. It would be a shame if this kept legitimate orgs of orgs out of the process, as these are sometimes the only orgs with the human resources to invest in the demanding task of following ICANN-related activites.
Let's hope ALAC can clear things up before long, as another org of orgs from Canada has applied for certification (Communautique, an org a bit like TC in French-speaking Québec).
Regards,
_________________________________________ Luc Faubert Conseiller en gouvernance TI et en gestion du changement / IT governance and change management consulting +1 514 236 5129 www.LucFaubert.com www.LucFaubert.com/blog www.isoc.qc.ca www.ccig.ca www.uqbm.qc.ca www.maillons.qc.ca
______________________________________________________________
______________________ Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545367
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-l
ists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
____________________________________________________________________________________ Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545367
Ok So that's that unless the NCUC changes its charter... it's either/or. Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 10:18 AM To: Roberto Gaetano; 'Luc Faubert'; 'Alan Greenberg' Cc: 'At-Large Worldwide'; 'NA Discuss' Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Reason for NO vote for TelecommunitiesCanada's ALS application Hi Roberto, If Communautique (as an org of orgs) will not meet the ALS criteria per the ICANN bylaws, then why leave them out in the cold? It would certainly be better to suggest to them that they can possibly find a home in the NCUC. With regard to "nothing prevents both things to happen at the same time", that may not be true. In fact, I am currently in discussions with Milton Mueller over this issue as the NCUC Charter deems ineligible those organizations that provide services under MoU with ICANN. --- Roberto Gaetano <roberto@icann.org> wrote:
Because, as noted half a million times already, the NCUC is a constituency of the GNSO, while the ALAC is an Advisory Committee of the Board, and they have two distinct roles. Therefore, it would be up to the organization itself to decide whether they want to have a (voting) position, limited to GNSO matters, or a (advisory, non voting) position, related to the whole spectrum of ICANN activities. Of course, nothing prevents both things to happen at the same time.
Incidentally, may I note that, to the best of my knowledge, nobody ever went to the NCUC list to suggest that current members of that constituency move *instead* to ALAC, even if most of them would indeed qualify.
Feel free to forward to NA discuss.
Cheers, Roberto
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Danny Younger Sent: 22 May 2007 15:21 To: Luc Faubert; Alan Greenberg Cc: At-Large Worldwide; NA Discuss Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Reason for NO vote for TelecommunitiesCanada's ALS application
So why not do the right thing and refer them instead to the Non-Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC)?
--- Luc Faubert <LFaubert@conceptum.ca> wrote:
Alan,
Thanks for you thorough reply. I appreciate.
From what I understand of the history behind the wording to the effect that orgs certified as ALSes should be user-driven, it was meant as a protection against lobbying groups. It would be a shame if this kept legitimate orgs of orgs out of the process, as these are sometimes the only orgs with the human resources to invest in the demanding task of following ICANN-related activites.
Let's hope ALAC can clear things up before long, as another org of orgs from Canada has applied for certification (Communautique, an org a bit like TC in French-speaking Québec).
Regards,
_________________________________________ Luc Faubert Conseiller en gouvernance TI et en gestion du changement / IT governance and change management consulting +1 514 236 5129 www.LucFaubert.com www.LucFaubert.com/blog www.isoc.qc.ca www.ccig.ca www.uqbm.qc.ca www.maillons.qc.ca
______________________________________________________________
______________________ Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545367
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-l
ists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
____________________________________________________________________________ ________ Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545367 _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.7.6/814 - Release Date: 5/21/2007 2:01 PM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.7.6/814 - Release Date: 5/21/2007 2:01 PM
Danny,
If Communautique (as an org of orgs) will not meet the ALS criteria per the ICANN bylaws, then why leave them out in the cold? It would certainly be better to suggest to them that they can possibly find a home in the NCUC.
Actually, you are wrong. Communautique has been certified as ALS, with 7 YES and 2 NO out of the 9 valid votes. Therefore, I am very sorry for you, but they are not out in the cold, but well inside the to-be-formed NA RALO. Besides, the spirit of the ICANN Bylaws is to avoid that fancy organizations, that have nothing to do with internet user representation, get certified and capture the RALOs. With the experience of time, we have seen that there are several "umbrella organizations", that have as members organizations that are directly governed by individuals. This is fairly common in particular in Europe, where there is one single European umbrella, that federates the national organizations. There has been discussion going on in order to align the language of the Bylaws to the spirit of the ALAC since the meeting in Kuala Lumpur. The decision has been to gather more experience, let the RALO be formed, and then evaluate the situation, possibly in conjunction with the ALAC review (which, incidentally, will take place in a not too distant future).
With regard to "nothing prevents both things to happen at the same time", that may not be true. In fact, I am currently in discussions with Milton Mueller over this issue as the NCUC Charter deems ineligible those organizations that provide services under MoU with ICANN.
This is a choice of NCUC, that is legitimate, but that will in the end only hurt NCUC, which, incidentally, has been already enough under fire by the GNSO Review run by LSE because of its lack of representativity. But again, looking at things going back to first principles, not applying narrow reading of the language, what this provision wanted to avoid was the fact that organizations were created for the purpose of providing services to ICANN, and could be used to steer the decision making process. This is not at all the case of the ALSes, who are not, in strict terms, providing a service to ICANN, but have an agreement for participation in the policy making process. I think that the NCUC would be much better off if it tried to do some outreach and recruitment of new members, even if this could put at a risk the current distribution, and try to grow rather than to be ill-advised in trying to prevent the other parts of ICANN to grow. But this is outside the scope of this mailing list. Cheers, Roberto
Hi everyone The evaluation process and criteria have been up for vote 2x and the ALAC has voted to postpone 2x. I sincerely hope that the whole ALAC will be ready to debate and vote in San Juan. We absolutely have to have a written criteria document approved, whatever it says, and we MUST change the process to take into consideration the RALO MoUs. The 2 draft documents are available on the wiki. I would like everyone to read and comment between now and June 24th so that we will all be ready to vote on this in San Juan. Thanks Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Luc Faubert [mailto:LFaubert@conceptum.ca] Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 9:09 AM To: Alan Greenberg Cc: At-Large Worldwide; NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Reason for NO vote for Telecommunities Canada's ALS application Alan, Thanks for you thorough reply. I appreciate.
From what I understand of the history behind the wording to the effect that orgs certified as ALSes should be user-driven, it was meant as a protection against lobbying groups. It would be a shame if this kept legitimate orgs of orgs out of the process, as these are sometimes the only orgs with the human resources to invest in the demanding task of following ICANN-related activites.
Let's hope ALAC can clear things up before long, as another org of orgs from Canada has applied for certification (Communautique, an org a bit like TC in French-speaking Québec). Regards, _________________________________________ Luc Faubert Conseiller en gouvernance TI et en gestion du changement / IT governance and change management consulting +1 514 236 5129 www.LucFaubert.com www.LucFaubert.com/blog www.isoc.qc.ca www.ccig.ca www.uqbm.qc.ca www.maillons.qc.ca
-----Original Message----- From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] Sent: 21 mai 2007 18:25 To: Luc Faubert Cc: At-Large Worldwide; NA Discuss Subject: Re: Reason for NO vote for Telecommunities Canada's ALS application
Luc, thanks for asking the question. I have been expecting such a question, and although as Randy said, I may not be under any obligation to "justify" my vote, I welcome the opportunity to discuss this. And thanks to those who answered on my behalf (I am in Europe and just got back from a long day's work).
The Telecommunities Canada (TC) application was made some months ago, and has been the subject of significant discussion among at least some ALAC members. The major issue has not been whether they are doing good things for the Internet in Canada, but rather do they meet the criteria set forth in the Bylaws. The wording in question is that "individuals will predominate in operation of the ALS". Although I am relatively new to the ALAC, I understand that for all ALS applications to date, this has meant that individual members either directly participate in the organization management or that they select the management group. TC is an organization of organizations. Although they do allow individual honorary members under some conditions, they explicitly exclude them from voting.
As Nick has pointed out, this is not the only way to interpret the phrase in the Bylaws. However, based on my experience as a member of various Boards, and on personal inclination, I do not believe that it is appropriate or even legally defensible to change the long-standing interpretation in an ad hoc, undocumented and uncoordinated fashion. To date the ALAC (and its members) has been using one interpretation. It is quite fair game to change that interpretation, but it should be done consciously and based on a formal decision of the committee as a whole. I do not think that it is right for some or even all ALAC members to privately decide to use a different interpretation. Aside from other problems with this, it opens the possibility of using different criteria for different applications - a cardinal sin in my opinion.
I have been advocating a formal discussion and vote on whether to change the interpretation and if so how. Several moths later, this has not yet happened. As Nick points out, it is scheduled to be discussed in San Juan, but it was also scheduled to be discussed in Lisbon.
If you detect a bit of frustration in my tone, you are right.
I voted "no" and with it made a statement to the committee expressing my frustration "that given the time that we have been talking about this one, we could not have found the time for a substantive discussion and decision on ALS criteria." This vote was in line with the long-standing and in my mind still-current interpretation consistently used by the ALAC.
This vote was admittedly made easier because I happened to vote very late and I knew that there were already sufficient "yes" votes to accredit TC. If my vote had been a deciding one, I am honestly not sure how I would have handled the situation.
I would not presume to speculate why some other ALAC members voted as they did. I can only assume that they voted based on their understanding of the rules and reading of the documents and that is fine with me.
The vote of the committee now stands, regardless of the logic used by the individual members in determining their votes, and I am not at all unhappy to welcome Telecommunities Canada as an ALS, and as one that will serve its constituency and ICANN well.
I still feel that if we are to alter the Bylaw criteria interpretation it needs to be done in a conscious way, and then used consistently. Hopefully that will happen before we get yet another such application.
Regards, Alan
At 5/21/2007 09:33 AM, Luc Faubert wrote:
Hi Alan,
May I ask why you voted NO for Telecommunities Canada's ALS application?
Telecommunities Canada is one of the (if not the) foremost organizations doing work related to the Internet in Canada. TC has been working tirelessly for almost 15 years, advancing the cause of Internet use and penetration in Canada.
Regards,
_________________________________________ Luc Faubert Conseiller en gouvernance TI et en gestion du changement / IT governance and change management consulting +1 514 236 5129 www.LucFaubert.com www.LucFaubert.com/blog www.isoc.qc.ca www.ccig.ca www.uqbm.qc.ca www.maillons.qc.ca
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica nn.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP Draft Code of Conduct: http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.7.6/814 - Release Date: 5/21/2007 2:01 PM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.7.6/814 - Release Date: 5/21/2007 2:01 PM
participants (6)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Danny Younger -
Jacqueline A. Morris -
Luc Faubert -
RJGlass | America＠Large -
Roberto Gaetano